SEA-PHAGES | RecA requirements

Link to this post \| posted 21 Jun, 2023 19:03
debbie	Sally Molloy (University of Maine, Honors College) has shown an in-depth investigation of what is needed to call a protein RecA. Attached is a doc with links to her Power Point presentation and her video describing her presentation. Edited 23 Aug, 2023 16:20 12Kb

Link to this post \| posted 28 Mar, 2024 15:58
brueschhoff	I have a question. In DoobyDoo, Feature 65 (on Phamerator), stop 45445, has some of the features of a RecA, but not all of them. Therefore, I do not believe we should call this a RecA recombinase. On this powerpoint, our cluster (DV), falls under the category of not having a RecA recombinase but calling it anyway. Does this mean that we should not call it a RecA recombinase, or that we should call it a RecA, even though it is not a true RecA recombinase? Thank you, Beth Rueschhoff Indiana University Southeast

Link to this post | posted 28 Mar, 2024 15:58

brueschhoff

I have a question. In DoobyDoo, Feature 65 (on Phamerator), stop 45445, has some of the features of a RecA, but not all of them. Therefore, I do not believe we should call this a RecA recombinase. On this powerpoint, our cluster (DV), falls under the category of not having a RecA recombinase but calling it anyway. Does this mean that we should not call it a RecA recombinase, or that we should call it a RecA, even though it is not a true RecA recombinase?

Thank you,
Beth Rueschhoff
Indiana University Southeast

Link to this post \| posted 03 Jun, 2025 17:18
cdshaffer	We had a recent putative RecA that had some curious results so am following up on the "How to call a RecA". Our protein had what appeared to be two significant differences to the standard model. One of the hydrolytic residues did not appear to be present and the C-terminal Mg binding domain was totally missing. See the attached for more details but the final result was that our protein was still a RecA once we investigated, and shows the limits of HHPRED and the idea that anything conserved is necessary for activity. 953Kb

Link to this post | posted 03 Jun, 2025 17:18

cdshaffer

We had a recent putative RecA that had some curious results so am following up on the "How to call a RecA". Our protein had what appeared to be two significant differences to the standard model. One of the hydrolytic residues did not appear to be present and the C-terminal Mg binding domain was totally missing. See the attached for more details but the final result was that our protein was still a RecA once we investigated, and shows the limits of HHPRED and the idea that anything conserved is necessary for activity.

Recent Activity

RecA requirements